Fortnightly - Congressional oversighthttps://www.fortnightly.com/tags/congressional-oversight
enRethinking Spent Fuelhttps://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2011/02/rethinking-spent-fuel
<div class="field field-name-field-import-byline field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Byline:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>John A. Bewick</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-category field-type-text field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Category:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">People in Power</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-bio field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Author Bio:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><b>John A. Bewick</b> is <i>Fortnightly’s</i> contributing editor. He formerly was secretary of environmental affairs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and holds graduate degrees in nuclear science and business management.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-volume field-type-node-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Magazine Volume:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Fortnightly Magazine - February 2011</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Before retiring from his three-term Senate career last year, George Voinovich (R-Ohio) introduced legislation that, if enacted, would completely transform the way we deal with spent nuclear fuel in the United States.</p>
<p>The Voinovich bill (S.3322)—and a companion bill sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), now chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee—would establish the United States Nuclear Fuel Management Corp., following the so-called “Fed Corp” model of the Tennessee Valley Authority.</p>
<p>While the Fed Corp approach has detractors, it offers a novel solution for a problem that lacks politically viable options. Until the country finds long-term answers, spent fuel will represent a growing headache for operators of existing nuclear facilities—and a serious challenge to new development on a substantial scale.</p>
<p>Both issues affect Constellation Energy Nuclear Group (CENG), which owns and operates three nuclear plants in New York and Maryland. Last fall Constellation withdrew from the Unistar joint venture that was working to add a new reactor at CENG’s Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant. But nevertheless, the company is eager to see America’s spent-fuel dilemma finally resolved, such that CENG President and CEO Henry B. (Brew) Barron testified before the DOE’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) to support the Voinovich bill and its objectives.</p>
<p><i>Fortnightly</i> spoke with Barron recently to get his perspectives on the Voinovich bill.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Fortnightly: Do you think Voinovich’s idea has support in Congress and any hope for enactment in the near future? </b></p>
<p><b>Barron: </b>There is support on both the House and Senate sides. Garnering greater support is one of the challenges that the industry faces, but that is just a matter of education and informing.</p>
<p>It’s not a normal process for Congress to take statutory requirements and obligations and spin them out into organizations that are managed like the private sector, where there’s not an annual appropriations process or very stringent and structured Congressional oversight. It’s different, and there are examples where I believe it has worked well. But even if you look at something like TVA, you’ll find individual members of Congress that find aspects of TVA that they don’t like, or there may have been a point in time when they didn’t appreciate the way TVA was being managed.</p>
<p>I think it’s something that’s new enough that it will take a considerable amount of effort to educate Congress about what the intent of the bill is and how it’s structured, listen to individual members’ concerns, and attempt to address them. There’s a lot of work ahead in helping Congress understand this is a right and proper way to address the management of the high-level waste program.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Fortnightly: Do you have a time frame in mind for this legislation? And do you think it has a better chance than, for example, climate change legislation, in terms of the ease of getting it passed?</b></p>
<p><b>Barron: </b>I very much believe it can be accomplished within the next Congress.</p>
<p>I don’t think it will have the same attributes as climate legislation, because climate legislation reaches more broadly across impacts on non-nuclear fuels, while clearly what’s done here is irrelevant to jurisdictions that have no nuclear operations. It doesn’t impact them and in fact may be beneficial because it would reduce the ultimate liability of the general taxpayer—if [the government’s spent fuel obligation] is managed better than it has been so far.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Fortnightly: One legal snag could arise if passing this bill would trigger the Pay-Go rule in Congress, which says that if Treasury loses revenues by switching income from the NWPA fees to the new corporation, the lost income of about $700 million per year has to be offset by cost reductions in the federal budget. Do you agree creating this new corporation would trigger Pay-Go?</b></p>
<p><b>Barron: </b>Whether it triggers Pay-Go is a technical, legal question that I’m not in a position to comment on. But I am willing to say these are user fees that were collected with the explicit purpose of supporting the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste. They aren’t and shouldn’t be considered general taxpayer revenues, so the notion that Pay-Go should apply to it is very arguable.</p>
<p>From a technical, legal standpoint, whether it would require some kind of exemption I’m not in a position to say. But clearly under the law these fees are not general revenues to the U.S. government. That’s been upheld in court a number of times.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Fortnightly: What about the Fed Corp approach? Some people worry about corporations; they get created and then have a life of their own. Should there be some requirement for an automatic termination or extension of the corporation in the Voinovich bill, so Congress has some long-term role in monitoring its progress?</b></p>
<p><b>Barron: </b>If it’s a federally owned corporation, there should be no restriction on Congress requiring periodic reports on its performance. If through that process Congress collectively became dissatisfied with its performance, Congress could legislate changes to it. We want to avoid having any particular minority interest in Congress unduly or inappropriately influence the performance of the corporation. But where there’s collective agreement across both chambers and the executive branch that things aren’t going properly and changes are needed, then they’d fully have the Constitutional authority to make those changes.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Fortnightly: While the Voinovich bill provides for the management structure of the project, it doesn’t directly address many of the difficulties in the process for selecting waste storage sites, such as the intense opposition we’ve seen in Nevada and Utah. Some suggest large financial incentives would motivate local communities that have the appropriate geography to compete for a project. For example, such incentives generate local support for the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) near Carlsbad, N.M. It seems like a different siting approach is called for, different from the current one at Yucca Mountain that has failed. How would the Fed Corp approach address the siting process?</b></p>
<p><b>Barron: </b>I think an entity like this, which wouldn’t be an arm of the federal administration, would be better positioned to be able to show a local benefit without getting into the general notion of federal government funding and general taxpayer revenues providing financial incentives to a local community. Washington doesn’t do a good job of recognizing local interests. But an entity that’s structured much more like a private enterprise—even though the shareholder would be the federal government—has a better chance of aligning with and getting the cooperation from the state and local community.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Fortnightly: What I hear you saying is that if the Voinovich bill or something like it were enacted, then the Fed Corp would be tasked with siting. In a way, that would greatly simplify the work of the federal government, and could narrow the scope of issues being examined by the BRC. </b></p>
<p><b>Barron: </b>That’s correct. I recognize the complexity of the issues the BRC has been asked to consider, and I’d point out that there are no simple and immediate answers. The questions need ongoing deliberation, and the governance of this new corporation would assume a lot of those deliberations. The board of directors would need to make sure the interests of local communities are being taken into account, and determine the best approaches to take with complex issues such as siting, cost management and overall impact on fuel cost.</p>
<p>Some people might be expecting too much of the BRC, but if there’s one thing they can do, they can set in motion a more sustainable governance process. The Voinovich Bill was created with a limited amount of input. To further inform it with the thoughts and wisdom of the BRC would be a good thing.–<span><span class="bolditalic">JAB</span></span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-category field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Category (Actual): </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/article-categories/nuclear-fuel-cycle">Nuclear Fuel Cycle</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1"><a href="/article-categories/environmental">Environmental</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-members-only field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Viewable to All?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-featured field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Featured?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-department field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Department: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/department/people-power">People In Power</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-picture field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image Picture:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/1102/images/1102-PIP.jpg" width="468" height="576" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-fortnightly-40 field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Fortnightly 40?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-law-lawyers field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Law &amp; Lawyers:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix">
<div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<a href="/tags/calvert-cliffs">Calvert Cliffs</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/ceng">CENG</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/commission">Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/congress">Congress</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/congressional-oversight">Congressional oversight</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/constellat">Constellat</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/constellation">Constellation</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/constellation-energy">Constellation Energy</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/constellation-energy-nuclear-group">Constellation Energy Nuclear Group</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/doe">DOE</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/fred-upton">Fred Upton</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/george-voinovich">George Voinovich</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/house-energy-and-commerce">House Energy and Commerce</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/ipp">IPP</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear">Nuclear</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nwpa">NWPA</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/pay-go">Pay-Go</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/s3322">S.3322</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/storage">storage</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/tennessee-valley-authority-0">Tennessee Valley Authority</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/tva">TVA</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/waste-isolation-pilot-project">Waste Isolation Pilot Project</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/wipp">WIPP</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/yucca-mountain">Yucca Mountain</a> </div>
</div>
Tue, 01 Feb 2011 05:00:00 +0000puradmin14126 at https://www.fortnightly.comLaissez Ies Bons Temps Rouler: NARUC's 107th Conventionhttps://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/1996/01-0/laissez-ies-bons-temps-rouler-narucs-107th-convention
<div class="field field-name-field-import-byline field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Byline:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Joseph F. Schuler, Jr.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-volume field-type-node-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Magazine Volume:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Fortnightly Magazine - January 15 1996</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Change was the operative word this year in New Orleans at the annual gathering the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Bob Anderson, Montana commissioner and outgoing president of NARUC, cited global competitiveness, technology and a political swing toward state's rights in his opening address. "State commissions have to respond to these powerful forces," he warned. "We don't have a choice." </p>
<p> Adding to the mood was the announcement, two days earlier, of a merger between IES Industries Inc., Interstate Power Co., and WPL Holdings, Inc. Interstate Energy Corp., the new parent, will serve more than 1.2 million gas and electric customers in Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin. After shareholder and regulatory approvals, the corporation will rank 34th among U.S. utility holding companies. </p>
<p> Such mergers are the future, said Robert P. Wason, chief financial analyst at the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC's) Office of Public Utility Regulation. By the end of 1996, 35 states will likely be affected by registered holding company operations, up from 26 states now (see sidebar). If the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) escapes Congressional repeal or reform, registered holding companies could double to 30. Potentially, a third of the top 30 investor-owned utilities (IOUs) would become registered holding companies, Wason said. These IOUs are "major players" in acquisitions overseas. </p>
<p> Wason said the SEC wasn't taking sides in the PUHCA debate, although it wants to ensure that states have access to holding company books and records. The SEC also wants to be able to audit companies and affiliate transactions. "Competition is here to stay, and there needs to be a balance of monitoring and measuring the effects of that competition upon investors and consumers," Wason urged. </p>
<p> Klaus Bergman, CEO of Allegheny Power System, Inc., came out strongly in favor of PUCHA repeal: "In today's world, PUHCA is not only no longer necessary, but actually counterproductive; it hinders competition and deprives the customers of the registered systems of competitive benefits." </p>
<p> Craig A. Glazer, chairman of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, noted that PUHCA's passage in 1935 put an end to industry bidding wars. NARUC protested the Act in favor of state's rights, but federal intervention won out. Now, however, states have working relationships with these companies, Glazer said, citing the "harmonius regulation" that developed between the Ohio commission and CINergy, another 1995 merger. "My message to the registered holding companies is, if you want this to happen in Congress, maybe you can just ram it through, . . . but it would be really important to have state regulators on your side." </p>
<p> More talk of change was voiced by the electric utility restructuring panel. William D. Harvey of Wisconsin Power &amp; Light Co. argued that while regulators change to adapt to the market, utilities must also: "It is time . . . for utilities to start making money the way any other company makes money (em by earning it through performance, not by redecorating our offices and putting the cost in our rate base." </p>
<p> Harvey took co-panelist Susan Tomasky, FERC general counsel, to task on stranded investment </p>
<p> recovery: "Not only is the mega-NOPR anti- competitive . . . [i]t sustains an old regulatory mindset that places the interests of utilities ahead of the interests of customers. By allowing utilities to recover all stranded investments, FERC is asking customers to bail out those utilities that made . . . unwise decisions. FERC's stranded-investment recovery plan actually discourages customers from patronizing the lowest-cost energy suppliers." </p>
<p> Tomasky chose to address the question of </p>
<p> federal-state jurisdiction, contending that the FERC has no "carefully crafted scheme to grab jurisdiction from the states in pursuit of a seamless web of </p>
<p> federally dominated utility regulation. . . . The truth is, our Commissioners, I believe, want nothing more than to permit states to pursue retail access if they so choose, unimpeded by the feds." </p>
<p> This cooperative spirit was much in evidence at a full-house meeting attended by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), despite the prediction of Texas's Robert W. Gee:" There will be no high fives at the end of this two-hour conference." No voices were raised during FERC chair Elizabeth Anne Moler's "crazy experiment." There were only productive exchanges. And tentative plans for future get-togethers. </p>
<p> Moler predicted nonproductive court battles unless state and federal regulators found "practical, workable solutions" to important issues. She also noted that the market, not the FERC, was the driver behind restructuring and deregulation of the electric power industry. "We are introducing competition," she said. "We want willing buyers and willing sellers to be able to get together. </p>
<p> "We are not on a mission to expand our jurisdiction. A proposed definition of what is local distribution is included in the NOPR. If we need to change the definition, fine. We will, if we can be convinced that there is something that is more workable, that is consistent with our legal requirements." </p>
<p> One regulator asked if the FERC and the states would be preempted by Congress. Moler said the FERC recently attended its first Congressional oversight hearing on the mega-NOPR, and that open access wasn't questioned. "They do want us to work with the states," she said. "That's very clear." </p>
<p> Christine E.M. Alvarez of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission asked the Commissioners to define the state-federal jurisdictional line in service delivery. </p>
<p> "Are you concerned the NOPR erodes your jurisdiction?" asked FERC Commissioner William L. Massey. "Or are you concerned the NOPR doesn't leave you with a piece of jurisdiction?" </p>
<p> "Both," Alvarez answered. </p>
<p> "If you know you're going to have a piece of every transaction, is that good enough?" Massey said. "I'm not talking about how big a piece it is, but a piece. Something to hang your costs on and to work your will." </p>
<p> Alvarez suggested that the states retain jurisdiction over retail transactions, but didn't offer a transaction size. </p>
<p> As the convention drew to a close, NARUC voted in a new president, Cheryl L. Parrino, chair of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. Parrino thanked and commended the candidate slated for the presidential dais (em outgoing first vice president Edward H. Salmon (em who withdrew his candidacy in October, citing "baseless allegations" that the New Jersey Ethical Commission would be unable to resolve until after the election. Parrino's acceptance speech echoed the theme of change, admonishing her peers: "We need more than talk. We need action." t </p>
<p> Joseph F. Schuler, Jr. is associate editor of PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY. </p>
</p>
<p> PUHCA Stats: What's at Issue? </p>
</p>
<p> Registered holding companies number 15 and render $5 billion in services annually: $4.2 billion for manpower, $800 million for fuel. Affiliate transactions--such as intercompany loans and money pool transactions--make up $10 billion each year. </p>
<p> The 15 companies have 97 utility subsidiaries and 278 nonutility subsidiaries: $135 billion in nonutility assets; $46 billion in nonutility revenues. </p>
<p> Exempt holding companies total 165, with 176 utility subsidiaries and 2,250 nonutility subsidiaries. </p>
</p>
<p> Source: Robert P. Wason, chief financial analyst, Office of Public Utility Regulation, Securities and Exchange Commission </p>
</p>
<p> NARUC Resolves </p>
</p>
<p> Commending Virginia's "take-charge" investigation of federal inaction on nuclear fuel disposal, NARUC encouraged its commissioners to follow that state's lead. Iowa commissioner Emmit J. George, Jr. called on "state commissions to search for ways to ensure ratepayers receive value for their [$11 million]." NARUC called for immediate legislation and the timely removal of spent fuel from 70 sites nationwide. </p>
</p>
<p> . . . </p>
</p>
<p> Endorsing a guide for storage of natural gas in salt mines as a model for state regulators, NARUC noted that it was up to the states and the storage sites to monitor safety standards. Design, construction, and maintenance of these facilities also fall under state jurisdiction, NARC noted, since they aren't covered by the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act. </p>
</p>
<p> . . . </p>
</p>
<p> NARUC will support a 20-percent flat tax credit for collaborative gas and electric research. The Congressional legislation would modify existing legislation that provides tax credits for individual research, but not for collaborative research.</p>
<p></p>
<p><center>38</center>
<p><b>Articles found on this page are available to Internet subscribers only. For more information about obtaining a username and password, please call our Customer Service Department at 1-800-368-5001.</b></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-members-only field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Viewable to All?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-featured field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Featured?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix">
<div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<a href="/tags/arc">ARC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/colorado-public-utilities-commission">Colorado Public Utilities Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/commission">Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/congress">Congress</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/congressional-oversight">Congressional oversight</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/federal-energy-regulatory-commission">Federal Energy Regulatory Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/federal-energy-regulatory-commission-ferc">Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/ferc">FERC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/ious">IOUs</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/it">IT</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/naruc">NARUC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/national-association-regulatory-utility-commissioners">National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/new-jersey">New Jersey</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nopr">NOPR</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/regulation">Regulation</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/storage">storage</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/william-d-harvey">William D. Harvey</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/wisconsin-public-service">Wisconsin Public Service</a> </div>
</div>
Mon, 15 Jan 1996 05:00:00 +0000puradmin8283 at https://www.fortnightly.com